Response 6: Dan Portnoy’s The Non-Profit Narrative

Within the seven chapters of Dan Portnoy’s The Non-Profit Narrative: How Telling Stories Can Change The World, he focuses on how non-profit organizations can use a “multi-channel approach” and “the metaphor of a Three-Act story structure” to present the organization’s message and story (2). The first chapter of Portnoy’s text positions the member of a non-profit organization using this text as a “screenwriter” (6). According to Portnoy, storytelling, when done well enough, can be one of the best ways to impact an audience as stories are incredibly important for humanity and serve multiple purposes for humans from “making sense of the world” to discussing ideals and behavior (5). This first chapter mostly focuses on the concept of the “Hero’s Journey” (8). The discussion of the “Hero’s Journey” or a “central character on a quest” sets-u Portnoy’s “essential elements of your story” discussed in chapter two (8; 24).

A key component of both a “Hero’s Journey” and Portnoy’s essential elements are the protagonist and antagonist. Portnoy describes a non-profit as having a “multi-protagonist story,” which means both the non-profit organization itself and the people who work for the organization are the protagonist (26). The antagonist of a non-profit organization is the answer to questions such as “what’s the issue that you’re fighting?” (27). Portnoy’s essential elements also consist of the setting or “physical location of the drama,” the “inciting incident,” which for a non-profit organization would be the answer to “why was your organization started?,” and tension that can be used during a “crisis moment” (25; 31; 33).

The major component of how Portnoy idealizes storytelling for non-profit organizations is focused on the three acts of beginning/set-up, middle/conflict, and end/resolution. While applying Portnoy’s three acts to a narrative presented in a movie is likely easily understandable, Portnoy takes this traditional format and applies it to non-profit organizations in an interesting way. Portnoy’s act one, two, and three are connected to campaign one, two, and three for an organization. Before an organization’s campaign begins, Portnoy suggests the organization starts with introducing materials, which present the “why” and the antagonist of the organization’s story around January.

Portnoy suggest the climax in act one (February-April) and act two (May-August) focus on the organization’s events. After this, August-September is suggested as time to focus on acquisition, while act three (October-December) or the largest campaign is focused on making sure that “your organization is functioning on all cylinders, donors are connecting with you the most, that they have the tools they need to help convey your message and that they’re telling the best possible story” (47). According to Portnoy, the third act is crucial as this timeframe is typically when most of an organization’s donations are going to happen.

Chapter four, five, and six emphasize the audience’s potential response to an organization’s representation, especially through digital spaces. Portnoy claims the first step to engaging with one’s audience is to “define” the audience and learn everything about them, then figure out the specific behavior you want your audience to accomplish, and then figure out the systems or how you will be communicating with your audience to encourage the defined behavior. When thinking of how to promote and design for an organization’s target audience, Portney also emphasizes the “continuum of communication” or “pathway of engagement” as a method to use when communicating with audiences.

In this method, members of an organization’s audience can move from “observer to participant to owner” (67). This happens as members of the audience moves from watching by looking at the organization’s website or advertisements, to engaging by liking on facebook or signing up for emails, to the act of being an owner by having an investment in the organization that can be described as being as “much on board as they can with your organization as they can be without having a job there” (70). The final chapter of Portnoy’s text appears to act as the last push or final motivation for Portnoy’s readers to take his advice and apply the advice to their organization.

Portnoy’s text reminded me of a component of this course which is listening to speakers from non-profit organizations. While a portion of Portnoy’s text focuses on digital media and storytelling, potentially any act wherein a representative of a non-profit organization is discussing the organization can be seen as a chance for using storytelling to enhance or provide further insight and interest into a non-profit organization. Prior to this text, I did not really think much about the storytelling being done by several of our speaker’s as a way to gain or sustain an audience in the ways Portnoy mentions, but rather as just a tool to establish context or background for an audience.

The Nest’s Executive Director Jeffrey White stands out for me when thinking of non-profit organizations and storytelling in the context of Portnoy. For the discussion on the overall existence of The Nest and for the discussions about The Nest’s programs, White heavily focused on the “why” or “inciting incidents” for The Nest as much as what exactly the organization does. White incorporated stories about himself and The Nest, other workers and volunteers and The Nest, and people who were using The Nest’s services heavily in his presentation. These stories, especially the one’s about those using The Nest’s services, all had a protagonist and an antagonist.

White also did something reminiscent of the act one, two, and three mentioned by Portnoy when he discussed The Nest’s major events throughout the year and how these events related to funding the Nest received. I think as an audience, White’s discussion or storytelling also left us with something we could “pass on” as Portnoy describes when discussing how well-done stories tend to make those interacting or encountering an organization have an emotional reaction to the organization. When the audience reacts in an emotional way to the storytelling, they might want to do something with or for the organization, potentially by volunteering, donating, or telling the organization’s stories through different avenues like everyday conversation or digital spaces.

Response 5: Shut Up and Shoot Excerpts

The excerpts from Anthony Q. Artis’ Shut Up and Shoot focus mostly on the technical aspects and planning involved in filming and ultimately creating a documentary. A portion of the first excerpt focuses on preproduction or planning the important components of a film like topic, theme, interviews, locations and the equipment and crew needed to accomplish the major goal of effective storytelling. As a member of the group creating a video for the CAC about youth in poverty, the preproduction section contained valuable insights that will help with any potential struggles we may have and to create a video that potentially accomplishes Albert Maysles idea of using the documentary (or in this case short realistic/depiction of youth in poverty) to “know one another” and “to know what’s really going on in the world around us” (6).

In “Brainstorming Your Idea,” Artis encourages viewing what films or books on one’s chosen topic already exists and think about the approach used by the creators to discuss the chosen topic (7). In our meeting with representatives from the CAC, we sort of discussed the potential approach to the material and goal of showcasing a realistic view of the lives of youth in poverty. A serious, but light-hearted tone for the video was the idea conveyed to our group and the ASPCA commercials with Sarah McLachlan was identified by the CAC representatives as the major example of what the video shouldn’t look like.

While our group has thought about the obvious cheesy or problematic representations of youth in poverty or poverty in general that we’re aware of, we haven’t really discussed positive, well-done, or accurate visual representations of poverty. I think our texts used for this course have showcased positive, well-done, and accurate approaches to discussing poverty and these texts have currently been guiding our group’s thought process on appropriate questions to ask the interviewees for this video, but as we move forward looking at visual approaches to discussing or showcasing poverty, which we agree are well-done, will likely help generate further ideas for the video.

The discussion on types of documentaries in the first excerpt from Shut Up and Shoot also appears to be somewhat applicable to our video project (12). Artis pinpoints expository, observational, participatory, and dramatic as four different approaches to storytelling in a documentary. From the meeting with the CAC representatives and our own group’s different discussions it appears as though our video project, while not exactly a documentary, is aiming to present youth in poverty in a more “expository” way, as we’re attempting to persuade our target audience to get involved with the CAC and to inform this audience about the reality of poverty and we’ve been discussing the idea of potentially “using images to support the words” (12) of our interviewees.

One thing we’ve been struggling with are the approaches classified by Artis as a part of a “dramatic” approach. This approach primarily consists of having reenactments of events. The CAC representatives discussed contrasting the stereotypical or idealized version of youth with events like prom, high school graduation, and acceptance into college with how youth in poverty live. In order to accomplish creating this contrast, we would likely have to use not necessarily reenactments for the idealized version of youth, but actors. In showing how youth in poverty live, we’ve discussed our dilemma with doing reenactments, using actors, or getting consent from actual youth in poverty with each other and also in class. While we’re still working through figuring out how to best deal with these previously mentioned ideas, I think Artis’ insight into using other films as examples and thinking further about the relationship between the goal of the video and the act of storytelling will help in dealing with this issue.

The second half of the first excerpt and the second excerpt focus more on the actual act of filming. Although we won’t be working with filming equipment with a lot of the same capabilities as mentioned in Artis’ text, a lot of the knowledge about the act of filming is still valuable to our project. Deciding when to use a tripod or when to go handheld, recording protocol, audio, location, and appropriate titles might seem obvious, but sometimes these components of filming get “lost” or forgotten as the group focuses on other aspects of the video project like what exactly we’re going to film, who we’re interviewing, and how to piece clips together. In the “Visual Language of Docs” section in the second excerpt, the discussion of the usages of establishing shots, wide shots, medium shots, and close up will likely be important to our video project as these elements play a role in “visual storytelling” and how filmers approach the subject of their documentaries.

Response 4: A Framework for Understanding Poverty

A Framework for Understanding Poverty is the outcome of Dr. Ruby K. Payne’s experiences as an educator and from her realization that “there were major differences between generational poverty and middle class–and that the biggest differences were not about money” (2). Payne claims poverty is caused by “interrelated factors” and that working definition of poverty focuses on seven resources (financial, emotional, mental, spiritual, physical, support systems, relationships/role models, and knowledge of hidden rules) and “the extent to which an individual does without [these] resources” (3;5). In order to illustrate the importance of these different resources in one’s ability to stay in or leave poverty, Payne uses seven scenarios, wherein she places the reader in the role of head of the household and gives a checklist of resources for the reader to think about within the context of each scenario. The scenarios come from “cases” with which Payne has “become acquainted” (9).

Another excerpt from Payne’s book touches on the role of relationships for students in poverty and how making “emotional deposits” and respect towards the students are key components to developing successful relationships and that any organization, specifically schools, should create relationships “by promoting student achievement, by being role models, by insisting upon successful behaviors for school” (111). The final excerpt focuses on the “additive model,” which is placed in contrast to the deficit model that  “names the problems and blames the individual” (170). This model appears to be aimed at usage by schools and focuses on creating an accurate mental model of poverty, studying poverty research, naming problems and finding solutions, hidden rules of economic class, language uses, family structures, sharing knowledge, and knowledge and community sustainability. The role of the additive model is to help “understand and address poverty and the underlying factors that have perpetuated it” (183).

Payne’s text relates well to the different ideas present in the poverty simulation this weekend. Her seven resources gradually appeared as important factors as we worked our way through the hour long simulation. I think from the very beginning the financial resource as a factor in poverty was obvious and therefore the resource most of the family I was in focused their attention towards. The group that I was a part of attempted to tackle this issue first, by having the employed grandparent go to work and making sure the employed grandparent’s check was cashed and therefore useful to pay for the rent and utilities.

One element of Payne’s list of resources that became apparent to many of us as we worked through our tasks was support systems. Payne defines support systems as “having friends, family, and backup resources available to access in times of need” (7). Many of the employed members of different families began to rely on each other to share transportation to work and to understand the roles of the available resources around the room. In the family I was a part of, one other resource became apparent, but we did not necessarily attempt or were able to attempt to address the issues related to these resources. The grandfather in this family was disabled and had diabetes, which relates to the physical resource in Payne’s definition of poverty. The grandfather’s physical issue made him unable to earn income and also increased the medical expenses of the family and ultimately, these two aspects made this family’s ability to thrive and leave poverty even more difficult.

Between Payne’s text and the poverty simulation, the difficulty of leaving poverty or even the ease in which one could slip further into poverty was emphasized. These factors related to the seven resources within the simulation and within Payne’s scenarios, all played an influential role  in the simulation families as the lack of these resources caused the families to become impoverished or caused the families in poverty to further stay in poverty, all played an influential role in the situations of these families. Both Payne’s text and the simulation also give insight into how difficult gaining and sustaining these resources are and how simply knowing these resources exist or do not exist in a family is not the end of understanding the situation of someone who is in poverty.

While in the simulation we became aware that we were lacking time or input into the relationship aspect of the resources, we were unable to accomplish incorporating this into our lives as we ended up placing the financial aspect above everything else and did not have time to implement or even contemplate the role of relationships within our family. To an extent, the family we were portraying had little choice when it came to fulfilling certain resources and little external help to fulfill these resources. For me, through participating in this simulation and viewing the simulation through the lens of Payne’s texts it has become further apparent to me the role and importance of nonprofits like the Community Action Council, wherein organizations like this one can help families in poverty fulfill these resources, but also potentially create an environment for families to even have the time or choice to think about the resources Payne mentions.

Response 3: Grant Writing as a “Means to an End”

This excerpt from Joseph Barbato and Danielle Furlich’s Writing For A Good Cause deals with, to an extent, what these two authors deem as an assumption “that pervades most fund-raising offices” (14). This assumption is that “anyone can write” (14). In order to explain their issue with this assumption, Barbato and Furlich discuss what could be described as the writing process or writing experience of those working within the context of fundraising offices. Barbato and Furlich claim those under this previously mentioned assumption treat writing the same way they do any activity, such as breathing or walking, which they approach with little thought (14), write mostly for an audience that either appreciates or cares about their writing, or view writing as a “necessary evil” for fund raising (15). The approach Barbato and Furlich suggest to those writing for fundraising purposes to use to move away from this assumption is to take the act of writing and the writing itself as seriously as the fund raiser would hope a funder takes their proposal (15). The authors aim to help fund raisers  do this by showing “how to use words well to win the support of funders” (17).

In the chapter “Today’s Development Office: Who Does What and Why,” Barbato and Furlich create a fake fund-raising or development office to give a general overview of the roles and relationships of the fund raiser-in-chief, the researcher, the major gift officers, the director of development, the volunteers and others, and the writer. In this short description, the writer’s work is described as “produc[ing] the written materials needed to raise funds” and also writing and editing proposals, concept papers, case statements, articles and newsletters, brochures, web sites, letters, and presentations (37). While the role of editor and writer in this section is vague, Barbato and Furlich provide further insight with the chapter “The Role of the Writer: Using Words for a Cause.” This sections emphasizes the flexibility of a fund raising writer, as they have to typically “respond to demands” (49) of those they are working for, in terms of generally creating a text, genre of the text, the longevity of the text (letter vs building inscription), and the quality of other coworkers texts.

Although Barbato and Furlich describe the role of the writer as hinged on the needs of their coworkers, the underlying theme or job of a fund raising writer is “to sell the organization” (47). This idea of “selling” the organization ties in well with and harkens back to an idea mentioned at the end of chapter two, which is “as we shall see, this [fund raisers having to play it by ear] places special pressures on the writer, who must flourish amid ambiguities and whose words are never in and of themselves the end product but always an important means to an end–raising money for the cause” (44). To me this idea from Barbato and Furlich and the previously mentioned idea of “selling” the organization pointed to the idea that while the writing for fundraising should be taken seriously and not approached with the negative or lackadaisical method mentioned by Barbato and Furlich, when crafting these texts that are supposed to “lure” funders with words, the emphasis of the writer should be on creating these well written texts to serve the organization’s goals.

This idea of words or writing as a “means to an end” reminded me of the “How Do I Know If I Need a Grant?” section in lesson 2 of The Only Grant Writing Book You’ll Ever Need. The main piece of advice given in this section is to figure out if your organization needs a grant, “you must have a problem that you (and/or your organization) want to solve, decide what you need to do to solve it, and figure out how much that might cost” (12). Ellen Karsh and Arlen Sue Fox’s response essentially suggests that an organization should have a well-planned out and well-designed program that requires additional funding, rather than creating a program in response to the existence of a grant. Thinking of this previously mentioned idea alongside my takeaway of “means to an end” has me positioning Karsh and Fox’s advice as also suggesting an organization should write for grants as a “means to an end,” rather than just to write or respond to grants to “chase” funding. In a roundabout way, this notion of “means to an end” helped me further understand the importance of nonprofit organizations being “mission driven” (12).

The act of writing the grant and potentially obtaining the grant should be seen as a way to accomplish the goals of a program that aligns with a nonprofit organization’s mission. This previous statement is likely incredibly obvious but ultimately this idea of mission driven versus grant driven caused me to reflect on ideas discussed by some of the speakers and the class’s connotations of nonprofits discussed on the first day. In terms of speakers, this idea of “means to end” brought to my mind the speaker, who formerly worked for North Limestone Community Development Corporation. When asked to explain the process of starting a nonprofit organization, he briefly went through steps along the lines of finding something you care about, seeing if someone is already dealing with the subject you care about, and finding funding. These steps relay the idea of forming a nonprofit organization around needs and concerns first, rather than forming an organization around what receives the most funding and this act of need and goals before potential funds connects to writing and grants as a “means to an end” and being mission driven, rather than than grant driven. This idea of being mission driven is also interesting as it provides a way to explain to outsiders the goals of the organization, but also can keep those within the organization in “check” or “on task,” when it comes developing programs, partnerships, or applying for grants.

In terms of the class’s connotations, this idea of mission driven organizations presented me with a potential factor to our positive connotations of nonprofits. Through ideas presented in Karsh and Fox’s text, nonprofits that serve their communities well and are offered support by funders are those that are mission driven and aim to be consistent with their goals and this act of staying aligned with a mission potentially builds the credibility and positive connotations of these organizations, not only for their funders, but for students like us or anyone that may not be involved in nonprofit organizations in positions other than volunteer.  

Questions/Topics of Discussion for Second Reader and Outside Reader

As I’ve been looking further at my chosen artifact of Donald Trump’s speech in response to the Orlando Nightclub Shooting and have developed a greater understanding of fantasy-theme criticism, several questions have arisen. These new questions, along with questions that have arisen since I’ve begun thinking about the discussions and questions presented in my prospectus conference, are all potential questions that I want to address with my second reader and outside reader.

One of these questions, which is likely obvious, but still important is: What are sources or ideas from your field/area of study that could complement my chosen topic and help make sense of Trump’s rhetoric?

While I’m using an artifact that is in response to a specific tragedy, the ideas, themes, and rhetoric presented in this speech don’t “exist in a vacuum” and Trump’s rhetoric and ideas in the past likely influence this particular speech and the response of his audience to this speech. My current understanding of using fantasy-theme criticism in an attempt to understand a “shared reality” or “shared worldview” of groups points to this analysis as taking the themes in this speech of Trump’s and creating an understanding of the larger rhetoric and ideas of Trump and Trump’s audience, but how much of Trump’s rhetoric prior to this speech should I incorporate to create a foundation for this analysis or to further support the analysis I develop from fantasy-theme criticism? How much do I need to look to the past outside of Trump’s rhetoric and ideas, in terms of past representations of the topics which this tragedy hits on for Trump (immigration, Muslims, LGBTQ+ community) to ground or contextualize the presentations of these topics in Trump’s speech?

I’m also particularly worried about fatigue or “burn out” of my potential audience around the subject of Trump. While the presidential race and the topic of “weaponized” grief are important, with the current saturation of discussion around Trump in mind, what are potential ways that I can frame this project/discussion that will engage my audience who may be “burned out” by discussing Trump?

There’s been a lot of discussion around media analysis or engagement with Trump and whether or not this engagement or analysis has been approached in the most ethical way and/or has failed to challenge issues with Trump. Are there any ethical issues I should be concerned about when analyzing Trump and presenting my findings from this analysis?

I’m currently envisioning the audience response or the response of surrogates to Trump’s speech as a key component to my analysis. What are potential approaches I can use to determine which supporters of Trump I will be looking at? When making this decision, what are potential criteria for the responses I choose to incorporate into my analysis?

In Trump’s version of his speech on his website and in the transcript/video of the actual speech Trump gave, there is the inconsistency of Trump describing Omar Mateen as born in Afghan in his live speech and as born to Afghan parents who immigrated to the United States in the version of his speech on his site. How should I deal with this inconsistency or any other inconsistencies that come up? Is this difference important at all?

My final question focuses on what to do with the fact that Trump’s speech was “given” or presented live. While fantasy-theme criticism focuses on analysis of texts or language, should elements of Trump’s visual presentation of his speech inform my work in any way? Would this be pertinent or just extra material that could draw me away from my topic and research goals?

Post-Conference Thoughts/Progress Report 1

Before my prospectus conference the scope of my topic and project was a major concern. During an appointment at the writing center, I had worked with a consultant to choose and develop three potential topics from the list of several topics and avenues that I left my Writerly Portfolio Presentation with. For my prospectus draft on Thursday, September 22nd, I decided to focus my project around the avenue I thought I could best work with and analyze within the space of the time left for Senior Seminar. Using this previously mentioned reason as a major factor in my project choice, I chose politicians and the way this group potentially “weaponizes grief.” By the draft of my final prospectus, I had narrowed down this topic to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and their surrogates usage of “weaponized grief” after the 2016 Orlando Nightclub Shooting.

In my prospectus conference, my confidence about this chosen direction for my project increased, but I was also alerted to the ways I could further develop the specificity of my project. My focus on the form of media that would be integral to my project, in terms of “old” and “new” media, was discussed during the conference. In previous discussions of my project I had emphasized social media as a key component of my project, but ultimately I have decided to focus on both forms of media since whether I chose Trump or Clinton’s response to focus on, the speeches they gave to the media after the incident will be used as an artifact for analysis and the response of their surrogates on social media will also be used. The discussion over how much analysis I could fit into a potential paper if I included both Clinton, Trump, and their surrogates into one paper, also further encouraged me to focus on the specifics of my project and to decide on the usage of one of these presidential candidates response to the Orlando Nightclub Shooting.

Post-conference, I’ve begun more research into fantasy-theme criticism, which I will be using as the method of analysis for this project. I have read Ernest G. Bormann’s “Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision” text, Sonja Foss’s chapter on fantasy-theme criticism, and Travis Maynard’s “And on the Eighth Day, God Created Rhetoricians: A Case Study of the Creation Museum.” I have also begun reading Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” and Joseph E. Uscinski’s “The People’s News: Media, Politics, and the Demands of Capitalism,” which both focus specifically on “old” forms of media. These ideas and understandings of “old” forms of media relate to the medium used to present the speech I will be analyzing and potentially to the way the chosen chosen speech is interpreted by the rhetor’s audience. I have also confirmed Professor Gary Deaton as my second reader and I have confirmed Dr. Avery Tompkins as my outside reader.

During this week and the upcoming week, I plan on continuing to work towards developing the annotations for my annotated bibliography due next week. While I’ve done some reading on fantasy-theme criticism, I also plan on reading more examples of fantasy-theme criticism in action, rather than theoretical texts about this method of rhetorical criticism. I also want to schedule a meeting with my second reader for the upcoming week to help shape my project further. My final goal for this week and the upcoming week is to actually start working through the steps for the fantasy-theme criticism of my chosen speech, which right now is Donald Trump’s speech in response to the Orlando Nightclub Shooting, and to schedule a writing center appointment to discuss whatever current steps I am on with my fantasy-theme criticism and to get another perspective on what stands out in Trump’s speech in relation to what a fantasy-theme analysis aims to pull or draw from an artifact.

Response 2: Bloom and Kilgore’s “The Volunteer Citizen After Welfare Reform in the United States”

With a portion of our past readings in Writing For/With Nonprofits, we have been gaining further insight into what nonprofits are, how nonprofits are formed and developed, how nonprofits address or do not address structural issues with poverty, and what role nonprofits have filled in the past and currently (ex. complementary to government programs or substituting for needed, but nonexistent government programs). While focusing on these larger themes of nonprofits, we have also looked at texts which gave insight either into individuals and communities in poverty or insight into those who are helping people that are impoverished. Most notably West & Smiley’s “Portrait of Poverty,” Farmer’s “Accompaniment as Policy,” and “Unshared Bounty: How Structural Racism Contributes to the Creation and Persistence of Food Deserts” touched on these previously mentioned individuals or groups. Within these discussions we have not had in-depth discussion around “why” someone volunteers and exactly who volunteers, as Leslie Rebecca Bloom and Deborah Kilgore’s case study “The Volunteer Citizen After Welfare Reform in the United States: An Ethnographic Study of Volunteerism in Action” does.

As I was reading Bloom and Kilgore’s text, I was reminded of Farmer’s “Accompaniment as Policy,” wherein Farmer discussed his experience of volunteering in Haiti and how this experience helped him to understand the concept of accompaniment. Bloom and Kilgore’s case study used interviews from ten volunteers of the Family Partners Program operated by Beyond Welfare, which pairs members of the middle-class to upper-middle class with individuals or families living in poverty in an attempt to mainly “alleviate the social isolation that families in poverty experience” (433) and to increase the understanding of poverty by the middle to upper-middle class. The idea of a long-term partnership and potentially friendship between volunteers for Family Partners Program and those supported by the program is presented as an ideal outcome of this program. This long-term act of helping a person or family deal with poverty relates to Farmer’s idea of accompaniment, which is described as “much more often about sticking with a task until it’s deemed completed by the person or people being accompanied, rather than by the accompagnateur” (1).

While the volunteering time frame for Family Partners Program volunteers was reminiscent of Farmer’s text, the discussion by Bloom and Kilgore of these volunteers alerted me to ideas and questions about volunteers that I hadn’t contemplated when reading Farmer’s text. A few of these questions are: What are the demographics of people volunteering with nonprofits? What are the goals and motivations of these volunteers? What type of impact do volunteers typically have on communities and individuals within communities and what impact do these volunteer experiences have on the volunteers? What are concerns about volunteering that one should think about as a volunteer or as someone running a nonprofit that relies on volunteers?

Bloom and Kilgore present an interesting position on volunteers through their discussion of past government reliance by Presidents like Reagan, Bush, and Clinton on volunteers. The researchers point to the embrace of “neoliberal strategies for social, economic, and state organization resulting in a strong political backlash against the welfare state, the emergence of the privatization of social services, and an increasing reliance on the private nonprofit sector and volunteers” (432) as a way to describe the changing views on volunteering, especially in the United States. The mention of neoliberal policies reminded me of excerpts from The Revolution Will Not Be Funded and the focus within these texts on the nonprofit industrial complex created by neoliberal policies, which causes issues for the nonprofit sector when attempting to better the lives of members and communities within society that they are supporting. By virtue of being a nonprofit organization, these organizations end up supporting government policies which hurt their beneficiaries and these organizations are typically never able to reach the root of the problem or the structural forces creating issues for groups that these nonprofits are supporting.

Bloom and Kilgore appear to be alluding to a similar idea, especially near the end of their text when they state:

Further, it is important that we remember that in the United States there is history of structuring society in ways that maintain a permanent underclass; therefore, only drastic changes in the U.S. social, economic, and political ideologies and practices will make a serious difference to impoverished and low-income families. (451)

Bloom and Kilgore’s insights into the particular Family Partner Programs volunteers, their broader discussion of volunteering, and their conclusions about volunteering can be described, to an extent, as a further example of the discussion in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded of the potential struggles that nonprofits face in dealing with issues like poverty or any issues that are influenced by structural forces. While Bloom and Kilgore’s text answers many of my previously mentioned questions about volunteer motivations and issues arising in the relationship between volunteers and the community the volunteers are helping, Bloom and Kilgore also appear to be emphasizing that while “alleviation” of issues related to poverty through volunteers is useful, an upheaval or major change in the way society is structured is the best way to effectively improve the lives of people living in poverty.